Originally posted by adjensen
No one is entitled to a house, much less a "mc-mansion" with six bedrooms, two kitchens and a four car garage. As a starter home. I live in a
neighbourhood that is packed with 30 somethings in 3000+ sq ft homes that are working themselves to death and missing the lives of their 1.5 children
as they struggle to pay for something that they don't need. It's sad, really.

Everything above this is well said.

I hate broad unverified statistics. And the whole "in my neighbourhood" argument is a perfect example.
The bigger issue is they USED to be able to afford it with better wages and lower cost of living. You can't say every American who has been forclosed
on was done so because they are idiots? What about my neighbor who worked his ass off his whole life for one company and was aking 6 figures a year.
He and his family lived in poverty for most of his life, so the chance to get a nice what you call mcmansion with 4 rooms, was an opportunity of a
lifetime. He signed an ARM, and paid double mortgage payments for years. When the recession started hurting construction, his cabnet company didn't
sell a cabnit for over a year. He was making minimum wage, trying to hold on, hoping things would turn around. They didn't and now he lives next to
me, in my modest townhouse.
Explain how this man is at fault.

How is he not at fault?

I'm not saying that he's not a sympathetic person, and I never said that he was an idiot, just that the decision to buy a house was his, no one
else's. The fact that he bought an expensive house, and then the economy tanked and he lost it can't be laid at anyone's feet but his own. Is he
miserable living in a modest townhouse? I'm guessing not, and he could have saved himself a lot of heartache by doing that in the first place.

I grew up in a house with five people, three bedrooms and one bathroom. My wife had nine sisters and brothers in a four bedroom home. It wasn't
spacious, but we made do, because that's what our parents could afford.

Originally posted by adjensen
I grew up in a house with five people, three bedrooms and one bathroom. My wife had nine sisters and brothers in a four bedroom home. It wasn't
spacious, but we made do, because that's what our parents could afford.

Well your prolly old as hell, no offense. Because if your parents were ok with that situation, and if they had a chance to get you out of it, and
didn't? Then I understand why you feel the way you do. Thats a tough reality.

Bottom line. He had a good job. The people got screwed. From multiple angles. And hard working guys like him paid the price.

And btw, its 2 bedrooms. And his kids gotta share a small room. They are not happy.

Edit: Lets say its his fault for being wth a company that didn't survive. Bad choice. Well with 30 years experience, he could get a job at any
construction sales company. Too bad they are not selling anything either. And THAT is undeniably the fault of others besides himself.

Originally posted by adjensen
I grew up in a house with five people, three bedrooms and one bathroom. My wife had nine sisters and brothers in a four bedroom home. It wasn't
spacious, but we made do, because that's what our parents could afford.

Well your prolly old as hell, no offense. Because if your parents were ok with that situation, and if they had a chance to get you out of it, and
didn't? Then I understand why you feel the way you do. Thats a tough reality.

What, are you kidding me? I'm supposed to resent my parents because they didn't feel the need to take on a load of debt so that everyone would have
their own bathrooms?

I hate to say it, but that attitude is exactly what's wrong with America these days. An insufferable sense of entitlement.

And btw, its 2 bedrooms. And his kids gotta share a small room. They are not happy.

Geez, most people on this planet live in poverty, six million children starve to death each year, his kids have to "share a small room" and that's
some sort of hardship?

Geez, most people on this planet live in poverty, six million children starve to death each year, his kids have to "share a small room" and that's
some sort of hardship?

Yea, its a hardship as long as the corrupt still have their super-'mcmansions', WHILE the innocent suffer. Thats the banks plan. We are too entitled.
We mere peasants have too much, they are conditioning us to take our rightful place in society.

Edit: The guy was making 6 figures. Why shouldn't he have had a nice 4 bedroom house. If he should have to loose his house, it should be after the CEO
of Bank of America moves out of his mansion and into a 4 bedroom. But that will never happen, cause wool-over-their-eyes pundits like you.

When I bought my house I had a fixed rate for 1 yr then it moved to ARM, when my payment went up I didn't cry to anyone about it - I had read my
mortgage before I signed it & was quite prepared for the rate increase. As a matter of fact the mortgage company made sure to make it clear to
me this would happen before I signed - the dirty bankers...

Look, it sucks to lose your home when you can't make the payments, but if they used so little judgement in purchasing the home as to sign an ARM, and
possibly buy more house than they could reasonably afford, then that's on them ultimately.

way before it gets to that point, i would get fire insurance and hope that a massive fire doesn't break out accidentally while i went on vacation and
destroy the house and all the valuable antiques i have collected over the years.

i would also warn the neighbours that my house was having electrical problems and that i was going to call an electrician, so to be vigilant and
prepared if a fire breaks out and call the fire department if it does.

I'm sorry but you live in a fairy land... The game is rigged boys and girls! It is designed to catch people out! That is why everything is so damn
complicated to understand! Then yes you have to buy a lawyer, but many people can not afford that! Especially as you have to pay a lot of other fees
when buying a house...

There is a thing called contract law okay... And basically there are a few things that need to be done BEFORE it is a legal binding contract. FULL
DISCLOSURE is one of them... Using complicated language to hide things in the small print is NOT full disclosure... There are many things wrong with
morgages, like where does the bank get the money? Ever thought of that? Lol... THIN AIR! Hmmmm yeah that seems like a fair deal! Lmao

Have a little compassion for people. Have a little understanding... Surely you can not deny the system is rigged?

I like how dinglenuts here are afraid of facebook. ATS is just as bad fools. Ever notice the adds are geared to your interests??? For example ATS is
currently running. google analytics, google +1, gorilla nation, quantcast to name a few. Quantcast is selling your information to other
advertisers.

THANK YOU.
If your afraid of facebook, then you shouldn't go on the internet.
Even if you use a proxy, your IP address is still visible to people who wan't it bad enough.

It is sad the condition of society. If seeing people post pictures of them ENJOYING their lives pisses all you internet junkies off, then supplement
your e-time with some drink time. Or something so you don't feel so incompetent that you have to delete your facebook. My great aunt uses facebook.
She has family all over the country and its a great way to stay in touch. If she didn't then I would probably never talk to her. Because she does,
she feels involved with her distant family.

Originally posted by Mrgone
For example; during this 5year period of negotiations, every time our family wanted to make payments towards the loan, the bank refused to take them.
The bank later used this lack of payments to justify the auction of our home from underneath us.

So did they have $4,500 x 12mths x 5 years = $270,000 in the bank to show they had the money to pay but the bank refused? Or did they spend it on
something else?

Maybe because the Adjustable Rate Mortgage is a newer spin on the old Variable Interest Rate mortgage without the "nice guy banker" spin that VIR
had. Under the VIR the interest also adjusted but in conjunction with the Prime as set by the Federal Reserve. So, in theory, that rate could go
down....just like the interest rate on credit cards that advertised their rates as Prime +xx% (generally 13%-17%) which was happening in the early to
mid 1990's.

With both the VIR (and sometimes the credit cards) there was a contractual agreement that the rate could not be increased more than once per year nor
could it decrease two quarters in a row. With such a consumer protection and a hedged bet in favor of the bank (in that the rate could not go down
more than twice in a year) what could possibly go wrong? I mean after all, the Prime Rate only goes up as a response to inflation. And if there is
inflation, you get a raise eventually to compensate right?

The problem was that contractual agreement wasn't worth the paper it was written on and the VIR became a de facto ARM that was evaluated every
quarter if the rate went up and only once per year (if at all) if the rate was going down. In other words, the banks lied after about 5-10 years into
the loan. Which, by the way, is when ARM's seem to trigger into their higher gear. Why did it happen? The original lender sold the mortgage to a
different lender after 5-10 years. The new lender didn't make the original contract so they refuse to honor it. And the homeowner was left without
protection to the new terms with the new lender because they held the title. So the homeowner had to renegotiate the loan because the alternative was
to find a buyer in 30 days losing whatever equity that had accumulated and also finding a new home at the same time so you had something to move into
when/if your house sold. Sound familiar yet?

Now since I mentioned selling as a solution to the problem, I have to mention the other three letter abbreviation of IRS. Yep, the government wants
it's share of the capital gains tax for selling a home if you do not buy a more costly home within a certain timeframe, thus proving a loss in
capital gains. The big difference between the days of the VIR versus the current days of the ARM is....who are you going to sell the house to when
there are a glut of houses on the market, the potential buyer has to consider whether or not they may lose their job for an extended period and the
banks are still not making loans without a considerable downpayment of 20% or more and a spotless credit history?

The odd thing to the whole situation is that the banks are well aware that another foreclosed home in their inventory is a white elephant. The house
will most likely need replaced by the time it is sold and the property as a whole is worth less than what they could have renegotiated the terms of
the original loan amount both currently and in the future as property with a condemned building that the buyer would have to remove is worth less than
no building at all to a buyer. Surely the banks are not expecting another housing bubble within the next five years to make all these foreclosures
worthwhile to them? Could it be that the banks figure that the seized property takes the place of cash assets despite the fact that assets is in fact
devaluing? And the even bigger question, why are the cities not fining the high heavens out of the banks for allowing their property to become rundown
like they would a homeowner for letting the grass become more than 2.75" tall? That is some big money for some municipalities, as much as $100 per
day in some places per residence in violation.

I'm not sure exactly what's going on...... an increase due in the payments, then no payments made, then foreclosure.... was there a balloon payment
increase? Buyer Beware. Read the fine print. If you don't understand clearly, don't sign anything. If you agree to pay a certain amount and then
you can't..... you lose your collateral, including your house. You lose your job, you can't make the payment, you lose. The balloon payment arrives,
you can't pay... you lose. So what is going on there? I couldn't tell what the bank did wrong. NOT that I don't believe they very well may have, as
has often been the case, but also, a lot of people agreed to bad loans they really couldn't afford if anything went wrong..... demotion, losing a job,
and so on. Without mortgage insurance, someone is left holding the bag. If the bank did wrong, fight the good fight. If the owner did wrong.......
sorry, Charlie. You gambled and you lost. Expected the house to keep appreciating so you could pay it off by selling and have extra money? It's
been many people's plan, and it worked for many people, but... it was always a gamble. Prices go down too, sometimes. So again....not placing blame
as I can't tell who did what, but if you don't pay your bills you agreed to, there is another price to pay. Personally, if I take out a loan I will
pay the higher price for a fixed percentage point. It may cost me more, but if I know what I can afford and things change, I don't get stuck with a
higher set point. I don't like gambling with that kinda potential in a crazy world. If you buy a house because you believe the price is worth what
you get, then it doesn't matter if the price goes down unless you were buying for an investment instead of a roof over your head. If you were
Counting on making money, you were taking a gamble, simple as that. Don't bite off more than you can chew..... and swallow!

The Above Top Secret Web site is a wholly owned social content community of The Above Network, LLC.

This content community relies on user-generated content from our member contributors. The opinions of our members are not those of site ownership who maintains strict editorial agnosticism and simply provides a collaborative venue for free expression.